Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Prosecutors said Tuesday that 70 current and former employees of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) face bribery and extortion charges in what officials say is the biggest number of such charges issued in a single day in the history of the U.S. Justice Department.

The defendants are accused of demanding over $2 million in corrupt payments from contractors in exchange for awarding over $13 million worth of no-bid contracts, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Sixty-six of the 70 defendants were arrested on Tuesday morning in New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina.

All of the accused were NYCHA employees at the time of the charged conduct, which took place at nearly a third of all NYCHA buildings in New York City.

“These 70 defendants are accused of demanding kickbacks and bribes for access to no-bid contracts and lucrative, under-the-table deals,” said Ivan Arvelo, special agent in charge of the New York field office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), in a statement.

Roughly one in 17 New Yorkers lives in a NYCHA building, with prosecutors alleging that the pay-to-play bribery schemes wasted millions of dollars and risked residents staying in poor living conditions.

“Make no mistake, this alleged pervasive corruption had the biggest impact on NYCHA residents themselves, who may have been cheated out of better services and programs,” Mr. Arvelo added.

NYCHA, which receives over $1.5 billion a year from the federal government, is the biggest public housing authority in the United States.

“This action is the largest single-day bribery takedown in the history of the Justice Department,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement.

“The culture of corruption at NYCHA ends today,” he added.

NYCHA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

More Details

Prosecutors allege that the defendants demanded and received cash payments in exchange for NYCHA contracts.

The accused NYCHA current and former employees either required contractors to pay up front in order to be awarded contracts or demanded payment once the contractors finished the work and needed an NYCHA staffer to sign off on the job.

Normally, the defendants demanded between 10 percent and 20 percent of the contract value, so between $500 and $2000. In some cases, however, the amounts were greater, with the total amount of corrupt payments demanded exceeding $2 million.

The alleged crimes wasted money and posed a risk to residents, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) inspector general Rae Oliver Davis, said in a statement.

“The alleged conduct identified during this investigation harms the effectiveness of housing programs that support more than 200,000 residents,” the inspector general said.

“It also poses a significant risk to the integrity of the HUD rental assistance programs that support housing assistance in New York City and erodes the trust of NYCHA residents in HUD’s programs,” she added.

Members of Homeland Security Investigations and New York City Department of Investigation lead people arrested, after many current and former New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) employees were charged with bribery and extortion offenses, in New York on Feb. 6, 2024. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)

The charges the 70 defendants face include solicitation and receipt of a bribe, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as extortion under color of official right, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years behind bars.

The bribery and extortion scheme exposed as a consequence of the investigation has led to calls to reform the NYCHA’s no-bid contracting process, according to the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI).

“The extensive bribery and extortion alleged here calls for significant reforms to NYCHA’s no-bid contracting process, which DOI has recommended and NYCHA has accepted,” DOI Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber said in a statement.

Ms. Strauber said that senior NYCHA leadership cooperated with the investigation.

Lead Paint Scandal

The bribery and extortion case involving current and former NYCHA staff isn’t the only scandal involving the agency.

In 2018, then-NYCHA head Shola Olatoye was forced to step down after it came to light that the agency had falsified reports to the federal government, falsely claiming that mandated inspections for lead paint had been carried out at NYCHA housing when they had not.

That came after former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration admitted that 820 children in NYCHA housing tested positive for high levels of lead and the city failed to marshal an effective response.

Mr. de Blasio himself faced criticism for downplaying the severity of the lead poisoning.

At the time, then-New York Comptroller Scott Stringer called for a complete overhaul of the NYCHA.

“Without these structural changes, today’s announcement will be just another failed attempt to fix what’s broken, and will only serve to banish another generation of NYCHA residents to dangerous, inhumane conditions,” Mr. Stringer said at the time.

“It is as heartbreaking as it is disgraceful that for years our City’s children were exposed to hazardous conditions such as lead and mold, and that multiple administrations lied about it.”

A new report from the US Department of Agriculture forecasts that US farmers are poised for another year of financial misery, facing the most significant decline in incomes in almost two decades as crop prices slide and US dominance in ag exports wanes. 

USDA forecasts net farm income, a broad measure of profits, to plunge $39.8 billion, or 25.5%, to $116.1 billion in 2024. This follows a forecasted decrease of $29.7 billion, or 16%, from 2022 to $155.9 billion in 2023. 

If the estimate holds, farmers face the largest income drop since 2006 and back-to-back years of financial pain. 

“With this expected decline, net farm income in 2024 would be 1.7 percent below its 20-year average (2003–22) of $118.2 billion and 40.9 percent below the record high in 2022 in inflation-adjusted dollars,” USDA wrote in the report. 

Simultaneously, farmers are witnessing a rapid decline in their leading role in the global grain market. Decades of corn export dominance were shredded by Brazil last year. 

Bidenomics is failing blue-collar workers who put food on America’s table.

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

“The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace.

It failed.”

– Susan Ivanova, Season 3 Opening Sequence, Babylon 5

When the World Economic Forum rolled out their advertising campaign for The Great Reset it was supposed to be the victory lap for Globalism.

Coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsequent global financial crisis unleashed a flood of government funny money that was supposed to buy our way to their perpetual prosperity.

It failed.

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of one of the chief architects of the Great Reset, Klaus von Commie Schnitzel’s right hand man, Yuval Noah Harari.

Populist leaders are on the rise around the world, attacking the liberal global order. They haven’t explained what will replace the order they have destroyed, and the result is the disorder, chaos and violence we are seeing today. pic.twitter.com/THRx2jzaKl

— Yuval Noah Harari (@harari_yuval) January 31, 2024

Spoken like the true authoritarian that he is, Harari can only see violence and chaos. He’s not wrong. The violence and chaos coming, however, have their roots in his attempts (or complicity) in trying to force, through violence, a global order on humanity which humanity doesn’t want.

This push towards violence, however, can stop tomorrow. All that has to happen is for cretins like Harari, Soros, Schwab, Gates, and all the people behind them, to truly accept the fact that they have failed and cut a deal with us.

If they do that we can minimize the violence on the horizon. But that’s not going to happen because they’ve already told us over and over that the abuse will continue until morale improves.

The impending chaos and violence is coming precisely because of Isaac Newton’s 3rd law, popularly summarized as “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

It’s not coming because we ‘don’t have any answers.’ We have plenty of answers, Harari and his ilk simply don’t like them.

For decades we met their violence with a kind of silent resignation as the cost of upsetting this system far outweighed the benefit of being the first 2nd lieutenant out of the foxhole in No Man’s Land. But the costs for so many today for going along to get along far outweigh the benefits accruing to them.

And that’s why the protests all across the West are intensifying.

The Great Reset project came at us too fast and we quickly saw it for what it was. While it was being rolled out through COVID most went along to be good neighbors. As I’ve argued in the past, acquiescence to the insane lockdown rules didn’t come from most people being sheep willingly herded into concentration happy camps. It came from a sense of wanting to be seen as cautious members of a community during a public crisis.

Of course there were some whose latent psychosis was triggered into being (*cough* Nassim Taleb *cough*), but the majority of people simply had their basic humanity weaponized against them.

Once the first wave of COVID ran its course and we saw how far they moved heaven and earth to silence actual cures for the virus, the Great Reset began morphing into the Great Awakening.

And the evidence of people standing firm against any further degradation of our society for this nonsense grows daily.

The Great Diffusion?

Years ago I wrote about Everett Rogers’ Theory of Diffusion as it pertains to politics in general and the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in specific.

Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory is applicable to politics as well as products.  The idea being that it takes around 16% adoption for a new technology, ideology, etc. to have the potential to become something bigger.   This was made popular by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Tipping Point.

This is the curve I was implicitly invoking in my recent article about humans being more wolf than sheep.

We went from comfortable wolves in a pack we thought protected us from the dangers of the world to anxious, nervous wolves wondering which one of us would stand up to the psychotic alpha leading us towards an abyss.

The alpha continues towards that abyss thinking it’s a giant game of chicken and that we will stay under his rule out of fear.

Many of us are in either a state of shock and/or denial about what’s been going on. But, as history has shown us, we don’t need a majority of people to fundamentally change the course of history.

But at the heart of my observation is the following: Who will you really become when you have nothing left to lose? Or better yet, where’s your loss threshold before the real you bares your canines?

Because that’s literally all I was saying. We all have a limit. And the idea that because your limit isn’t as low as mine or some rando on the intarwebz makes you a sheeple is exactly the type of condescending and unearned sense of entitlement that drives the very ghouls that are convening at Davos this week to force us to rebuild our trust in them.

Looking around social media and the headlines of protests around the world by the working class, which the managerial class of over-educated midwits despise to the core of their being, you can see we’re very close to if not past the 16% tipping point.

This is why Davos has put on the full court press to accelerate the decline and fall of western civilization. We can all feel it. We’re a little over a month into 2024 and a year’s worth of geopolitics has occurred in that time.

They can feel the whole project slipping away and this has to be nipped in the bud before it spreads into what Rogers called the ‘Early Majority.’ To that end this is why they were so hard on “vaccine hesitancy,” and launched the wars on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.

It’s why now anyone to the right of Karl Marx himself is a “Fascist!” and is a member of the “hard right.” This is to dissuade people from identifying with outgroups and shame them into qualifying all of their dissension from their norm with, “I’m not a racist but…” or “I don’t agree with everything they say but… “

The Gap into Conflict

But also embedded in that article was Geoffrey Moore’s refinement of Rogers’ Curve to include the “Chasm.” Getting to 16% adoption isn’t enough. The new thing can get to 16% easily by simply opposing that which is dominant. This is what Harari was implying, that we are just ab-reacting to the opposite of them, by saying that we only reject the liberal order but have nothing to replace it with.

This is why the new idea or product has to then rebrand itself into something more universal. It’s not enough to be against globalism or the WEF, we have to also be for something better.

That becomes a decision point for a lot of people. It’s the moment when the established idea, brand, etc. wakes up to the threat and fights back. This is what the 16% chasm represents, that gulf between opposition and affirmation.

This is also what Davos and their ilk are truly exceptional at managing. They keep the Overton Window framed over irrelevant side issues to ensure that a new majority doesn’t “cross the 16% chasm,” by uniting over that better solution that doesn’t include them.

I’m calling this group they are afraid of, “The Radical Center.”

This is why AfD got to 16% in 2018 as the anti-Merkel party, but was easily neutralized when they didn’t become the true “Alternative for Germany” party. Once they did that and the current Scholz-led government failed to protect the German middle class during and since COVID, they’ve become a real threat.

A mixture of this rebranding and entrenched arrogance of the German political establishment is what led to AfD’s rise to the mid-20s in German polling. And it’s why despite a hastily-organized hit on them for an unconfirmed secret meeting in Postdam over deportation, they are still polling above 16%.

They are now the kind of threat that requires more drastic action, like banning them as a political party. That the German political establishment is even contemplating this tells you that they are fighting a rear-guard action against a movement that has grown far bigger than just AfD itself.

Gerrmany has crossed ‘The Chasm’ and a kind of Radical Center is forming.

The ideas this embodies, a Germany for Germans that rejects globalism, inflation, endless taxation and war, in favor of localism, community and cohesion is far more immune to crude attack.

So, the response is to send Chancellor Scholz to Kiev to sign a mutual security pact with Ukraine later this month to bypass the political revolution happening at home.

By the same token I’ve exhorted the libertarian movement in the US to become the movement of solutions; practical achievable solutions that speak to a true majority of Americans. And from there lead them to more localized solutions over time.

But because they have refused to do this, getting bogged down in being anti-Fed, anti-this, and anti-that, it leaves them still a fringe political group, easily neutralized by a simple meme:

This is why I’ve become disillusioned with where the libertarian movement has wound up. This is the essence of what Pete Quinones and I discussed in the recent podcast we did. It doesn’t mean I reject the philosophy or even the use of many libertarian critiques of central planning as useful filters, it means the philosophy isn’t enough to move the Overton Window in any practical political sense.

It’s why I voted for Trump twice, despite his many limitations, and will vote for him again if Davos can’t stop him from being on the Florida ballot. Even then, out of spite, I, like many, will simply write his name in.

And, guess what? He’ll still beat the LP candidate.

Accelerated Decrepitude

So, the Great Awakening has morphed, from Davos’ perspective, into a kind of Great Acceleration, where they feel the threat of our coming together across the false dyad of the Left/Right division to reject them outright.

This is why they will accelerate their plans to squelch all of those who leak away from their control. It’s why they hate Elon Musk so thoroughly for taking Twitter away from them. It’s why Bill Kristol believes it’s right to bar Tucker Carlson from coming back into the US after his visit to Russia.

That squelching was done to anger us into running to alternative internet ghettos like Gab and Mastodon and all the others.

It’s why they purposefully ruined Twitter under the previous management to drive us away and take away our voices through de-platforming Alex Jones and everyone else. How many people still refuse to go back to Twitter because of what happened in 2017? How many still make the “perfect be the enemy of the good” argument vis a vis Elon Musk’s reign at Twitter? *Cough* David Icke *Cough*

Sure the Rachel Maddow set is still enthralled every night, all 200,000 of them, but now they are the ones clutching their pearls in the real media ghettos.

It was easy to go after Jones in 2017. It was easy to go after Gab later on. It was easy to see the alternative platforms like Rumble and Substack spin up to try and become antipodes to YouTube and WordPress, Locals for Patreon… etc.

I have nothing against these platforms, and have even tried some of them in the past, but I also recognize that they were allowed to become real to siphon people off into smaller tribes and build easily-ignored echo chambers. All to prevent us from crossing the chasm together to form the Radical Center.

And if one of these platforms gets too powerful? Well, I hope everyone has an archive of their Substacks. I also hope my fears on this are fully unfounded. But I’ve seen this movie before and I didn’t like it the first time I watched it.

Because, when voices capable of speaking across the false political divide of Left v Right get big enough, they have to be brought low. It’s fine for those on “the right” to be dismissed as kooks, dead-enders, isolationists, conspiracy theorists, MAGAtards, Nahtsees, etc.

Russell’s Re-Branding

It’s quite another when someone from “the Left” comes to the same conclusions. That’s why they came down so hard on Russell Brand last year. And it was disturbing how quickly the “Nuts and Sluts” campaign against Brand occurred.

Because Brand was un-personed first before the outrage machine went into overdrive against him. They just accused him and took him out.

And just to remind everyone what I’m talking about, I wrote about this in relation to the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation “process” back in 2018:

“Nuts and Sluts” is easy to understand. Simply accuse the person you want to destroy of being either crazy (the definition of which shifts with whatever is the political trigger issue of the day) or a sexual deviant.

This technique works because it triggers most people’s Disgust Circuit…

… The disgust circuit is also easy to understand.

It is the limit at which behavior in others triggers our gut-level outrage and we recoil with disgust.

The reason “Nuts and Sluts” works so well on conservative candidates and voters is because, on average, conservatives have a much stronger disgust circuit than liberals and/or libertarians.

What I wrote about in that article then has come to pass today. Back then I predicted that as Davos encouraged “The Left” to further normalize deviance the less effective “Nuts and Sluts” would become. The more we would see the attacks for the crude attempts at maintaining the Overton Window that they were.

But, here’s the problem.  As liberals and cultural Marxists break down the societal order, as they win skirmish after skirmish in the Culture War, and desensitize us to normalize ever more deviant behavior, the circumstances of a “Nuts and Sluts” accusation have to rise accordingly.

It’s behavioral heroin.  And the more tolerance we build up to it the more likely people are to see right through the lie.

It’s why Gary Hart simply had to be accused of having an affair in the 1980’s to scuttle his presidential aspirations but today Trump has to piss on a hooker.

For Russell Brand, however, they had to go all the way to the end game… being a sexual predator of younger women. Amidst all the clamor about Epstein Island etc., tying Brand to the talk of pedophilia by inference was meant to be the knockout blow against someone who has become one of the most effective and irrepressible dissident voices in the post-COVID environment.

There are few people in the current zeitgeist who were becoming more capable of radicalizing the Left side of the center than Russell Brand.

But, most importantly, it was meant demoralize us to not put faith in anyone else, to have no sources of comfort or people to trust. Brand’s overnight demonetization was the beginning of what I’m now calling the Great Demoralization campaign.

The goal of that campaign is to stop the emergence of that Radical Center; a loose coalition of normal people who are willing to put aside that which they disagree on in service of that which they do agree on. And eating bugz, living in pods under constant surveillance, and the threat of being un-personed is something we can all agree sucks.

To his credit Brand got right out in front of the accusation by taking complete responsibility for his past behavior, and throwing himself, rightfully, onto the altar of public opinion. He showed us his own disgust circuit for the person he used to be, not the person he is aspiring to be.

And that’s why his interview with Tucker Carlson recently was such a galvanizing thing. Carlson, smartly, practiced exactly what he preaches… a little Christian charity. By giving Brand the platform to tell his story, he finds another fellow traveler on the path to breaking this illusion of control Davos and their kept media outlets have laid over us.

These two guys aren’t supposed to agree on these things. Tucker’s a right-wing Fascist. Brand is a left-wing Lunatic. And yet, they share something very powerful in common, they both were cast out of the temple for speaking truth to power.

And Brand doesn’t disappoint in his performance. It’s one of his best, and I’ve seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

He’s spot on, noting himself at one point that the goal of everything we see in the media was “demoralization.” In fact, this entire post was inspired originally by that one statement during the 45 minutes he spoke with Tucker. That was the ‘money shot,’ as it were, of this interview.

It told me that not only does Russell Brand get it, but he knows exactly what his role now is.

Ep. 70 Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. Watch it when you get a minute. It’s one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you’ll ever hear. pic.twitter.com/bCZDTYfZAZ

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 30, 2024

As I write this speculation has gone wild that Tucker is meeting with the vilified Vladdie Putler. If he does pull that off it won’t quite break the internet, but if there is any event in 2024 outside of Davos’ control which could it will be that.

Because what happens when Carlson and Putin discuss the lies of foreign policy, of the nature of the conflict in Ukraine, the grievances between Russia and the West and find out they have more in common than they are supposed to?

Carlson didn’t break the internet with his interview of Russell Brand, nor with Alex Jones, but he is taking what’s left of the comfortable lie that the media is anything other than court stenographers putting it in a paper bag, dropping it on our doorsteps, and lighting it on fire. It’s been so long since we saw anyone do journalism that we barely understand what it looks like when we see it.

Carlson, like Brand, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Jerome Powell, Jamie Dimon, or any of the others I give credit to in this blog, aren’t perfect men.

We killed that guy over two thousand years ago.

We don’t need them to be perfect men. If you need that, I suggest you seek professional help.

What we need is for them lead where they can when they can. They just need to give us the tools needed to cross the chasm and find common ground. Let us then build a public square that looks nothing like the one that we’ve been allowed to protest in up until now.

THAT is a Great Reset I can look forward to.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon to join the Radical Center

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

New York Justice Arthur Engoron pressed former President Donald Trump’s legal team on Tuesday for clarification amid a report that the former finance chief of the Trump Organization may be negotiating a plea deal for perjury in his civil fraud case.

Alan Weisselberg, a co-defendant in the civil case, is reportedly in talks with Manhattan prosecutors regarding a potential plea deal, according to an article published in The New York Times on Feb. 1. The deal, according to unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter, would purportedly require him to admit guilt to perjury charges related to his testimony in the trial before Justice Engoron.

The justice expressed concern over the potential implications of perjury in an email to counsels Kevin Wallace, Clifford Robert, Alina Habba, Chris Kise, Andrew Amer, Colleen Faherty, and Louis Solomon.

The article reports that Mr. Weisselberg “would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand” and during a pre-trial interview in the case Justice Engoron presides over.

“As the presiding magistrate, the trier of fact, and the judge of credibility, I, of course, want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial,” Justice Engoron wrote. A copy of the email was sent to Allison Greenfield, the judge’s chief law clerk.

The reported perjury deal relates to allegations that Mr. Weisselberg lied about the size of President Trump’s Manhattan penthouse. However, if the reported perjury deal is true, Justice Engoron noted that he’d consider dismissing Mr. Weisselberg’s testimony on other matters.

“Although the Times article focuses on the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, his testimony on other topics could also be called into question. I may also use this as a basis to invoke falsus in uno,” the justice wrote. This means that if he lied about one thing, he could be lying about everything.

The trial centers on allegations that the former president and his company, The Trump Organization, defrauded banks, insurers, and others by allegedly overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth in documents used in deals and to secure loans.

Justice Engoron, who concluded the 10-week bench trial late last year, is expected to issue a ruling as early as this week after delaying the verdict, which was originally due by Jan. 31.

Mr. Weisselberg’s possible plea deal adds a layer of complexity to the proceedings.

In his correspondence, Justice Engoron acknowledged the potential impact of perjury on the trial, stating, “Perjury—particularly in a high-profile trial—undermines the broader ends of justice and cannot be ignored.”

Emphasizing the urgency of the matter, Justice Engoron set a deadline of Wednesday at 5 p.m. for counsels to respond.

“By Wednesday at 5 p.m., please submit, as officers of the court, a letter to me detailing anything you know about this that would not violate any of your professional ethics or obligations,” Justice Engoron wrote.

He further urged President Trump’s lawyers to provide insights on how “I should address this matter, if at all, including the timing of the final decision.”

If found liable, the former president could face a lifetime ban from conducting business in New York and a hefty fine of $370 million.

During closing arguments, President Trump labeled the trial a “political witch hunt” and criticized Justice Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the charges.

Last year, Ms. James, a Democrat, brought the case against the former president and his co-defendants, accusing them of using phony statements of financial condition in a number of business transactions.

Prior to the bench trial, Justice Engoron had already found President Trump liable for the case’s top fraud charge through a summary judgment. The trial was to decide the remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud, and falsifying business records.

President Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, framing the case as a politically motivated scheme to undermine his 2024 presidential campaign. He is the leading front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination by far.

He has also expressed concerns about the broader impact of a potential loss in the case. He contends that such an outcome could have a chilling effect on businesses in New York City, potentially prompting other businesses to relocate.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre warned that unless the $118B ‘bipartisan’ border security bill (which allocates more than $75 billion for Ukraine and Israel) isn’t passed, there will be chaos at the southern US border.

“Because congressional Republicans are choosing partisan politics over our national security and refusing to pass the bipartisan national security agreement that includes significant border reforms and funding, over the coming weeks, ICE will be forced to reduce operations because of budget shortfalls,” she said on Air Force One, The Politics Brief reports.

“We have asked Congress for additional funding and resources, and every time Congress has provided less than we asked for, or most recently, completely ignored our supplemental request.”

Calling Biden’s Bluff

Likely sensing that nobody is buying what they’re selling, NBC News reported Wednesday night – citing anonymous sources (of course) that the Biden administration is now considering taking executive action to deter illegal immigration across the southern border.

Perhaps the administration realizes that passing legislation on border security attached to Ukraine and Israel aid is a no-go, while actively fighting Texas over keeping the border open is not a good look.

And of course, NBC wants us to know that “the plans have been under consideration for months.”

So, why force Congress to cough up billions for foreign countries first before playing that card then? Why not keep the border closed three years ago, instead of nuking Trump-era policies and announcing that the US was open to any and all?

The unilateral measures under consideration might upset some progressives in Congress, the officials said, but they noted that Democratic mayors who have asked for more help from the federal government to handle the influx of migrants in their cities would be pleased. The measures are still being drafted and are not expected to take place any time soon.

…

Biden faces growing political backlash, some of it from members of his own party, over his handling of the border as he campaigns for re-election. He plans to cite the Republican turnabout on the bipartisan border legislation as proof that for political reasons the GOP does not really want to solve the problem. But he is still vulnerable on the issue, trailing his likely 2024 opponent, former President Donald Trump, by more than 30 points on securing the border and controlling immigration, according to a new NBC News poll released this week. -NBC News

“It’s a plan B,” said an anonymous official.

By Joe Antoshak of FreightWaves

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Sunday his committee is unlikely to consider cutting the federal funds rate at its next meeting in March. The implication from his remarks in a “60 Minutes” interview was that the board would not entertain the idea until the following meeting in May.

“We want to see more evidence that inflation is moving sustainably down to 2%,” Powell said. “We have some confidence in that. Our confidence is rising. We just want some more confidence before we take that very important step of beginning to cut interest rates.”

For months, analysts have been warning of the inflationary effects of turmoil in the Red Sea, where the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group, have sought to shut down shipping in protest of the Israel-Hamas war. The corridor is pivotal in global trade due to its role in facilitating the flow of goods, including oil and various commodities, between Asia, Europe and the Americas. 

Despite security measures undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, it’s uncertain whether these efforts will halt Houthi attacks altogether. Some vessels continue to navigate the Red Sea with armed guards on board as a precaution​​.

In the U.S. these inflationary pressures make interest rate cuts, which would help to spur freight demand, less likely. Should those conditions persist, the cumulative effect of reduced business activity, alongside curtailed consumer expenditure, could edge the economy toward recession.

In January, J.P. Morgan Global Market Strategist Jordan Jackson wrote: “Core goods inflation, which has been disinflating all last year, and [is] in outright deflation on a 3- and 6-month annualized basis, could reverse higher, complicating the Fed’s objective of controlling inflation down to 2%.”

This, of course, is always the Fed’s precarious balancing act, navigating between inflation control and fostering an environment conducive to sustained economic expansion. So far in this crisis, Powell’s actions have largely been proved right.

But the risk of holding interest rates too high for too long is that the U.S. consumer could finally start to buckle. That would reduce freight demand in the second half of the year, right when carriers should be regaining pricing power. It could push the long-sought freight recovery further into the future.

Assessing the delays

The Red Sea disruptions have elongated shipping transit times from seven to 20 days, with an average probably closer to 10. This rerouting, largely circumventing the traditional Suez Canal route in favor of detours around Africa, has inflated shipping rates considerably over last year’s figures, hitting specific routes like East Asia to Northern Europe the hardest. Something like 12% of all global trade was moving through the Red Sea before the attacks.

Container vessels have borne the brunt of these changes, with up to 90% rerouted, leading to a potential 20% to 25% dip in global container capacity. A swath of global companies have voiced concerns over these challenges, signaling potential delays and the exploration of alternative logistics solutions.

Retailers and manufacturers are likely to transfer the burden onto consumers. Particularly vulnerable sectors include consumer goods, apparel and chemicals. Major retailers like Walmart, H&M and Target, which rely heavily on the Suez Canal for transporting goods from Asia, are expected to be impacted.

Consider a specific example of how doubling the shipping cost of a container from $2,000 to $4,000 could ripple through to U.S. consumers. (For reference, that doubling is less drastic than how container spot rates to the U.S. have trended over the past two months.) Assume the container is filled with electronics, a common import from Asia to the U.S.

The direct cost to ship this container of electronics has doubled. This increase must be absorbed by the supply chain somewhere.

An importer in the U.S. pays the shipping fee. With the cost to bring in a container now $4,000 instead of $2,000, the importer’s expenses have sharply increased. If the container holds 1,000 units of a product, this change alone adds $2 more cost per unit.

To maintain margins, both wholesalers and retailers are likely to mark up their prices. If the added cost is $2 at the import level, by the time it reaches retail, this increase could be magnified to $4 or $5 per unit.

For a consumer, this means that an electronic item that might have cost $100 before the shipping rate increase could now cost $104 or $105. While this seems a small increase on a single item, it’s worth considering the cumulative impact across all affected goods.

As numerous containers and a wide variety of goods are affected by these increased shipping costs, that effect can significantly contribute to inflation. Consumers might start to see across-the-board increases in prices for imported goods, from electronics to clothing and beyond.

It should be noted that other analysts, like those at Goldman Sachs, suggest that the impact on inflation will remain muted, with a possible y/y inflation increase of 0.2%. They argue that the current situation is different from the pandemic, when shipping and inflation both jumped significantly.

After all, consumption and production readings have defied recession predictions over the past two years.

Live Update (h/t @JonathanTurley):

A great deal of technical to-ing and fro-ing to start the hearing, and then Sotomayor seemed to embarrass herself again:

…Justice Sotomayor just asked Mitchell is he “is setting up” the possibility of some president running for a third term to bar the states on term limits.

Mitchell responded “of course not.” 

…There appears to be confusion on the Court.

Mitchell was referring to “Term Limits” as in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. Sotomayor asked why he kept referring to the qualification of term limits in the Congress.

Roberts stepped in to clarify that this was a reference to the case. 

…Justice Sotomayor just said that Trump is making a “gerrymandered rule” that would interpret the rule as not applying to Trump… 

Judge Jackson then pushed the ‘insurrection’ narrative: 

…Jackson demanded to know why Mitchell didn’t believe it was an insurrection, and is asking why it must be an “organized effort” as opposed to “a chaotic effort.”

Mitchell called Jan. 6th “shameful” but explained that it was not an insurrection. 

Mitchell did an excellent job.

Then, attorney Jason Murray, who represents the Colorado voters who are the technical plaintiffs in this case, came under siege

…Thomas is first up and noting that there is at best one case whether this power was used despite the bitter and divisive time. 

He notes that one would expect national candidates to be disqualified if this reading was correct that states could use this power… 

…Chief Justice Roberts asked a deadly question of why the 14th Amendment (which is designed to limit the power of states) would be used to enhance this power of the states.

He suggested that Murray’s arguments are “ahistorical.” 

…Kavanaugh just agreed with Roberts that there is “no historical evidence” to support this interpretation of Section 3 in terms of state power. 

…Kagan just asked “why a single state could decide who is president of the United States…

“if you were not from Colorado … that seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it.”

…Kagan’s question is what the disqualification advocates did not want to hear from her. She could be key in securing a heavy majority or unanimity in rejecting this decision… 

…Barrett is joining the pile on and saying that, under Murray’s argument, they are “stuck” with the record of the state. She noted that “it just doesn’t seem like a state call.” 

…Barrett is laying waste to the argument that they should just watch the tape of Jan. 6th and reach their own conclusions… 

…Chief Justice Roberts is raising how a ruling in favor of disqualification would create a “daunting prospect” of tit-for-tat moves by states. Roberts laid out why this would be madness in sorting out elections. 

…Roberts is saying “you are avoiding the question” in the obvious danger of states differing on what constitutes an insurrection. 

…Murray argument is turning in a running of the gauntlet with justices lined up to develop serious blows to the disqualification arguments and their implications… 

…Justice Alito just asked Murray if military officers could have refused to take orders from a president who engaged in insurrection. Murray suggested no. But Gorsuch jumped in to say you said he was disqualified “from the moment it happens.” This is a hit below the waterline for Murray and he is struggling. 

…Gorsuch is delivering the coup de grace to ask why he was not immediately disqualified without any due process. “On your theory, would anything compel a lower official to object a former president.?” He then hit Murray for “trying to change the hypothetical.

…Kagan is again raising what must be concerning questions for the disqualification advocates. She is saying that Murray is ignoring the “broader principle” limiting the power of states on national questions like this one. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for president?” 

Murray is taking on water again. Justices keep pushing him to the edges of the map and he is struggling on the implications. 

…Alito is raising the anti-democratic aspects of the effort and “the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.” 

…Jackson is again raising the lack of uniformity in states using this power.

She is again asking whether presidential elections should be excluded and indicated that she is still not satisfied on that point. 

“Why didn’t they put president . .. on the list.”

This is a significant problem for disqualification advocates.

The questions suggest that Jackson does see a real problem on the first question. 

As Turley points out, “…Murray is finally done. That was rough.”

It’s not going well for the NeverTrumpers…

*  *  *

Today, at 10amET, the Supreme Court will rule on Colorado’s efforts to get former President Trump off the 2024 ballot for “insurrection or rebellion”.

A Wall Street Journal editorial calls for a 9-0 vote to strike it down.

Additionally, as RaboBank’s Michael Every notes, within days we may then see how the Supreme Court feels about the D.C. appeals court ruling over Trump’s January 6 court case, which struck down his claim to immunity: as the Journal op-eds separately, while Trump’s defence is “legal sophistry… the sweeping nature of the ruling means that it also risks weakening the office of the Presidency, so perhaps at least four Supreme Court Justices will be interested in having the last word.”

In short, more twists and turns to come(?)

But, this morning, all eyes and ears will be focused on whether Democracy is in danger from a decision by SCOTUS and Jonathan Turley – the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University – will be providing live coverage of the Supreme Court arguments.

When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X.

…The Court has long struggled with the aftermath of that decision and does not relish the chance to again enter the fray of a close presidential election. https://t.co/OATI29AFoT

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 8, 2024

I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historical flawed. 

It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world.

You will be hearing arguments from:

•  Jonathan Mitchell, who is representing Trump. He is a Texas lawyer who has previously argued before the Court.

• Jason Murray, who is representing Republican voters who want to disqualify Trump. Murray clerked for Justice Elena Kagan and also then judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit.

• Shannon Stevenson, who is the Colorado Solicitor General. Stevenson only recently became solicitor general and was previously in private practice.

We can expect the justices to focus on the three main questions before the Court:

1. Is the president “an officer of the United States” for purposes of section 3?

2. Is section 3 self-executing?

3. Was January 6th an “insurrection” under Section 3.

You will likely hear references to Griffin’s Case in the arguments. Not long after ratification in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled in a circuit opinion that the clause was not self-executing. He suggested that allowing Congress to simply bar political opponents from office would be a form of punishment without due process and would likely violate the prohibition on bills of attainder.

You will also likely hear comparisons to other sections and how this case could impact the meaning of terms like “officers” and “offices.” For example, the Appointments Clause gives a president the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” That creates a tension with defining, as do those pushing this theory, that a president is also an officer of the United States. Most of the advocates simply argue that the meaning is different.

You may also hear references to the Incompatibility Clause which provides, “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6. Critics have noted that the proponents of this theory argue that the Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore are “Officers of the United States.” Indeed, they reject any difference between  an “Officer of the United States” and an “Office under the United States.”

However, this creates tension with members serving as Speakers and Senate Presidents Pro Tempore since those positions are also “Offices under the United States.”

Some of the argument will clearly focus on the history and context for this amendment.

These members and activists have latched upon the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — which was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.

Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court later explained, “[t]he idea [was] that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.” 

So, members drafted a provision that declared that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. I publicly condemned President Trump’s speech that day while it was being given — and I denounced the riot as a “constitutional desecration.” However, it has not been treated legally as an insurrection. Those charged for their role in the attack that day are largely facing trespass and other less serious charges — rather than insurrection or sedition. While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of an insurrection. While a few were charged with seditious conspiracy, no one was charged with insurrection. Trump has never been charge with either incitement or insurrection.

The clause was created in reference to a real Civil War in which over 750,000 people died in combat. The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.

Conversely, in my view, Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot.

It’s official: as we predicted even starting last month Ukraine’s top general and commander of the armed forces is now out.

President Zelensky has confirmed that Gen. Valery Zaluzhny has been dismissed, in what appears part of a broader shake-up of top military and government leadership. Zelensky said it is “time for renewal”.

Zelensky said Thursday he met with his army chief and that while it’s time for significant “changes” – Zaluzhny should remain “on his team”. Though the decision had been rumored and reported for over a week, presumably the stall was to negotiate and ensure peaceful transition of the top defense post. There were also widespread reports that Zaluzhny had refused to step down.

“We discussed what renewal the Armed Forces of Ukraine need. We also discussed who could be in the renewed leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The time for this renewal is now,” Zelensky announced in an English statement on X and Telegram.

Zaluzhny had just before the announcement confirmed he had an “important and serious conversation” with Zelensky which focused on changing battlefield tactics and strategy.

The now former top commander has huge popularity among military ranks and especially far-right, ultranationalist and neo-Nazi elements. Will his firing result in mutiny or rebellion among some units? 

Very quickly on the heels of news of Zaluzhny’s dismissal, Ukraine announced the appointment of Oleksandr Syrskyi as the new commander-in-chief the armed forces. Until now, Gen. Syrskyi was Ukraine’s ground forces commander.

‼️ Volodymyr Zelenskyy officially announced that he appointed Oleksandr Syrskyi as the new commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. pic.twitter.com/zNidGclLiD

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) February 8, 2024

According to Ukraine’s FT correspondent:

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov thanked Zaluzhny for his “achievements and victories,” saying that the general “had one of the most difficult tasks – to lead the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the Great War with Russia.”

A new military leadership team is expected to take over as of today. President Biden just yesterday acknowledged Ukraine is in “dire straights” right now, after Zelensky has struggled to attract more weaponry, and amid war weary Western publics, and European nations which have seen their own stockpiles drained.

Zelensky is likely hoping this major change and shake-up could once again attract and renew Western defense support and aid. To illustrate just how dire the situation is, most might have missed this subtle detail in The New York Times days ago…

‘They Come in Waves’: Ukraine Goes on Defense Against a Relentless Foe (archived) – New York Times, Feb 4 2024
…At the hot spots of the eastern front line, Ukrainian troops are outmanned, outgunned and digging in.

“They come in waves,” said Lt. Oleksandr Shyrshyn, 29, the deputy battalion commander in the 47th Mechanized Brigade. “And they do not stop.”

The geopolitical blog Moon of Alabama was the first to highlight it, and accurately observed the following days ago [emphasis ZH]:

A Lieutenant at age 28 is likely a seasoned one. But in the role of a ‘deputy battalion commander’?

What happened to the S3, the Major and nominal deputy battalion commander? What happened to the six Captains the battalion is supposed to have? All of them should be better trained and qualified to take on the role of a deputy battalion commander than a mere Lieutenant.

This small detail, a Lieutenant as deputy battalion commander, tells me more about the battalion’s state that any flowery description of casualties.

Likely it is too late for any major turn-around for Kiev forces, though the Zelensky administration has lately been teasing the potential for a large new military mobilization of hundreds of thousands, which is sure to be hugely unpopular and controversial among the Ukrainian population.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

For the second time in a week, Joe Biden claimed that he had a conversation with a world leader who is dead, once again displaying advanced cognitive decline.

This time Biden claimed that he had fairly recently spoken with former German Chancellor Helmet Kohl about the events of January 6th 2021 at the US Capitol .

Speaking at a fundraiser in New York on Wednesday, Biden stated “And then Helmut Kohl turned to me and said, ‘What would you say, Mr. President, if you picked up the London Times and learned that 1,000 people had broken down the doors of the British parliament, killed some bobbies on the way in, to deny the prime minister to take office.”

Helmet Kohl was the German chancellor between 1984 to 1989 and, more importantly, has been dead since 2017.

Not only did Biden reference Kohl once, he did it again later in the day.

pic.twitter.com/QcoZYDwVeK

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) February 8, 2024

It’s the same G7 meeting in 2021 and the same story that Biden referenced earlier in the week when he claimed it was former French leader François Mitterrand who spoke to him, although Biden called Mitterrand “the German Chancellor.”

Mitterrand was in power from 1981 to 1995 and, more importantly died in 1996.

Biden’s mind is gone. He’s mixing up leaders from the 1980s with ones from today.

Which dead leader is Biden going to channel next?

Which deceased leader from the 1980s will Joe Biden speak with next?

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 8, 2024

The White House continues to downplay and ignore the situation:

The more they roll their eyes and try to ignore this, the worse it’s going to get for them. pic.twitter.com/BW5XUehCas

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 7, 2024

This surely cannot go on much longer.

A Sky News journalist flagged up the latest example of Biden’s garbled speech, admitting that it shows why many Americans are concerned about the state of his cognitive health.https://t.co/FoyJ6kjsEG

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 7, 2024

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

A search and rescue operation concluded Thursday that the five US Marines who were aboard a Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter, flying from Creech Air Force Base in Clark County, Nevada, to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, died when the aircraft went down during stormy conditions in the mountains outside of San Diego. 

“It is with a heavy heart and a profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines,” Maj. Gen. Michael Borgschulte, commanding general of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, wrote in a statement. 

Borgschulte continued: “To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.”

Update: The five 3rd MAW Marines have been confirmed deceased.

“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.” -Maj. Gen. Borgschulte, 3rd MAW Commanding General pic.twitter.com/CBLs2jDKWG

— 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (@3rdmaw) February 8, 2024

MCAS Miramar revealed search and rescue operations found the heavy-lift helicopter approximately 35 miles east of San Diego around 0900 local time Wednesday. 

The search-and-rescue units, involving ground and aviation teams, worked in poor weather conditions with snow and low cloud coverage as an atmospheric river storm battered the region. 

There’s no word on whether the helicopter experienced a mechanical failure or if weather-related issues were to blame.